Orissa

Rayagada

CC/6/2017

Smt. Brundabati Sahu - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, Reliance Life Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

Self

17 Apr 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 06 / 2017.                                              Date.     17    .     4  . 2018

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                       Preident.

Sri  GadadharaSahu,                                                                       Member.

Smt. Padmalaya  Mishra,                                                              Member.

 

Smt. Brundabati Sahu, W/O: Mangu Sahu, Vill: Tamperguda, GP:Marikhiti, PS:Gunupur,        Dist:Rayagada  (Odisha)                          …. Complainant.

Versus.

1.The Manager, Reliance life Insurance Company  Ltd.,  Mumbai       

2.The  Branch   Manager, Reliance life Insurance Company  Ltd.,  Rayagada(Odisha).                                                                                                                   .…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Self.

For the O.P No.1   :- Sri J.K.Mohapatra, Advocate, Rayagada.

.

JUDGMENT

The  curx of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for  non refund  of balance deposited amount along with  bonus accrued against policy No.18203441 from 2010 till its final payment  for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant. The brief facts of the case  has summarised here under.

 

On being noticed the O.Ps appeared through their learned counsel and filed written version refuting allegation made against them.  The O.Ps taking one and another pleas in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, 1986. The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.Ps. Hence the O.Ps  prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

  Heard arguments from the learned counsel for the    O.Ps and from the complainant.    Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties. 

This forum  examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

                                                         FINDINGS.

On perusal of the record it is revealed that there is no dispute that the complainant was a policy holder bearing No. 18203441  opted for unit linked policy namely product Reliance Highest NAV Advantage plan-SP.   Further  there is no disputes the  above  policy  term and premium payment term   is 15 years.   Again  there is no dispute the complainant had  paid total amount a sum Rs. 50,000/-  on Dt. 20.11.2010 towards  01  No.  yearly  premium  @ Rs. 50,000/- each premium. (copies of the deposit slip is in the file marked as  Annexure-I).

The main grievance of the complainant is that  she has received a sum of Rs.42,000.00 against the  payment of Rs. 50,000/- less than the amount paid by him i.e. Rs. 8,000.00 and when asked the reason the O.P. No.1  had  stated  that it is  the surrender value of the said policy and the complainant  is  not entitled anything more. Hence the  C.C. petition filed by the complainant  to get  the  balance amount.

In a recent judgement on Dtd. 23.4.2013  the Hon’ble National Commission has held that “such policies involve speculative gains through trading in shares in the stock market and hence are commercial in nature. So a consumer complaint for a grievance regarding such policies would not be maintainable”.   In Ram Lal Aggarwalla  Vrs. Bajaj Allianz life insurance Co. Ltd. &ors   it has been held that  “the investment made by the complainant was to gain profit.  Hence, it was invested  for commercial purposes and therefore, the complainant is not consumer under  the O.Ps”.   In another case of  Smt. AbantiKumariSahooVrs. BajajAllinz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. the Hon’ble State Commission, Odisha where  in observed in First Appeal No. 162/2010 held that the money if the complainant invested in the share market is not doubt a speculative gain and the speculative investment does not  come under the C.P. Act., 1986.   It is submitted that the present policies in question are Unit Linked policies and law is well settled that such policies are speculative in nature and the same are taken  for  investment purpose.  Therefore the policy holders of such policies are not consumers and disputes relating to such policies are not sustainable before the consumer forum.

          The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vikram Greentech India  Ltd Vrs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd reported in  SCC 2009  (5) page No. 599   where  in  observed  that “An insurance contract, is a species of commercial transactions and must be construed like any other contract to its own terms  and by itself.   In a contract of insurance,  there is requirement of  uberrima fides  i.e. good faith on the part of insured .  Except that, in other  respects, there is no difference between a contract of insurance and any other contract.  The four essential of a contract of insurance are (i) the definition of the risk (ii) the duration of the risk (iii) the premium and (iv) the amount of  insurance. Since  upon issuance of insurance policy, the insurer  undertakes to indemnify the loss suffered by the insured on account of risks   covered by the insurance  policy, its terms have to  be strictly construed to  determine the extent  of liability of the insurer.  The endeavor of the court must always be to interpret  the words in which the contract is expressed by  the parties. The  court while  construing the terms of policy is  not  expected to venture in to extra liberalism that may  result in re-writing the contract or substituting  the terms which were not intended by the  parties. The insured  cannot  claim anything more than what is covered by the insurance policy”.

          In the case of General Assurance Society Ltd. Vrs. ChandmullJain  1966 (3) SCR 500 where  in observed “ In interpreting documents relating to  a contract of insurance, the duty of the court is to interpret the words in which the contract is expressed  by the parties, because   it is snot for the court to make a new contract, however  reasonable, if the parties have not make it themselves.

          Similarly, in the case of Oriental Insurance C.o. Ltd. Vrs. Samaynallur Primary   Agricultural Co-op. Bank  AIR 2000 SC 10 it was observed  “The insurance policy has to be construed having reference only to the stipulations contained in it and no artificial farfetched meaning  could be given to the words appearing it .

          Again in the case of Polymat India P. Ltd and Anr. Vrs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and ors. AIR 2005 SC 286 where in observed  “The terms of the contract have to be construed strictly without altering the nature of the contract as it may affect the interest of parties adversely.”

          The  O.Ps in their written version preliminary objection  clearly  mentioned that  the complainant  has  paid  premium 01   yearly @ Rs.50,000/- on Dt.20.11.2010 after which the complainant approached the O.P. for surrendering  the policy  by submitting the  payout form for inerim surrender of the said policy as on 20.01.2016.  It is pertinent  to note  here  that the pay out form clearly mentioned the terms and conditions stating that the surrender amount of the said policy will be payable after deduction of the allocation charges based on the effective NAV rates and also mentioned the  surrender amount of Rs.42,804.27 as on 27.1.2016  that will be payable to the complainant.  The complainant while submitting  the said payout form had duly signed it as on Dt. 20.01.2016.  Hence when a person signs any document, it is presumed that she had read and understood the document and consented to its content  which is marked as Annexure-2.

          Further  the O.Ps submitted  that  upon receipt   of the request   for surrender of the policy from  the  complainant on Dt. 20.01.2016  the full  surrender amount Rs. 42,804.27 of the  policy  had  transferred to  the  complainant vide on line TRF vide HDFC NEFT Ref, No.4440u1627163683 on Dt. 27.1.2016  in the account of the complainant which is marked as Annexure-3. Again the O.Ps argued  that the allegation of the complainant regarding less surrender amount paid is  groundless and against the policy terms and  conditions,.

          It is to reiterate that the policy documents as  well as  the payout form clearly stated that the surrender amount will be payable after  deduction of the allocation  charges and the O.Ps had duly  paid the  appropriate surrender value of Rs. 42,804.27 post deduction of surrender charges to the complainant.   Afore-mentioned facts establish  that nothing  is either  due or legally recoverable by the complainant from the O.Ps and O.Ps have duly complied with the terms and conditions of the policy  contract.  In the ligjht of above facts and contract no cause of action ever arose against  the O.Ps as the present  complaint does not  raise any “Consumer Dispute” and there is no deficiency  on the part of the O.Ps.  The  complainant  has neither a legal  basis nor a  valid cause of action  against the O.ps to file the present complaint, before the  forum. Hence this forum has no jurisidiction to entertain the present complaint. That the modus operandi of the O.Ps  is different from any insurance sectors and it earnestly follows the rules and  regulations passed by the IRDA and further  functions of its business are carried in accordance with the settled principles of law.  

We are completely agreed with views taken in written version and  the documents filed by the O.Ps in  the present case. Hence  this forum  feel the complainant is not entitled any  relief from this forum and   liable to be dismissed.

To meet the ends of justice the following order is passed.

 

ORDER.

In  resultant the complaint petition is hereby  dismissed. In the circumstances there is no order as to costs.  Accordingly the case  is disposed of.

Dictated and corrected by me               Pronounced on this          17  ^th.   Day of   April,  2018.

 

 

Member.                                             Member.                                                             President